Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING COMMISSION <br />CITY OF PLEASANTON <br />COUNTY OF ALAMEDA <br />STATE OF CALIFORNIA <br />RESOLUTION NO. 1629 <br />A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY <br />OF PLEASANTON MAKING TH$ FINDING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL <br />IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR FALENDER HOMES DEVELOPMENT <br />IS ACCEPTABLE FOR THE P~20JECT FILED UNDER PUD-78-2. <br />WHEREAS, Falender Homes has applied for planned unit development to <br />construct Unit #3 of their zero-lot line development located <br />between Alder Court and,Lemonwood Way along the extension <br />of Muirwood Drive; and <br />WHEREAS, an environmental impact report was completed in October, 1976, <br />for this development plan, which is still appropriate for the <br />project since neither t~e development nor the circumstances <br />have changed in the interim; and <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission', reviewed the environmental impact <br />report which was prepared for this project at the April 10, <br />1978, meeting to determine if the project would have any <br />significant impacts on the environment, and if so, whether <br />mitigation measures or overriding considerations may be <br />,-- present. <br />NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: <br />Section 1. The Planning Commission makes the following findings: <br />1. That of the unavoid8ble impacts listed on page 25, only <br />the noise impacts would be significant without mitigation. <br />2. That although the outside noise environment would exceed <br />recommended levels,'the mitigation measures included in <br />Condition #12 wouldlreduce the interior noise levels to <br />recommended levels;~lreducing exterior noise levels is <br />impractical since ilt should be done, if required, along <br />the freeway which i~ under separate ownership, and, <br />when the adjacent l~nd develops, the exterior noise <br />levels at this sitelwould probably be reduced to recom- <br />mended levels due to the buffering of intervening <br />structures. <br />3. That the energy usa~ <br />levels because of t: <br />conservation requir <br />4. That the remaining <br />impacts with cumula <br />in the General Plan <br />3e would be reduced to reasonable <br />ze City's and State's adopted energy <br />=_ments. <br />impacts listed on page 25 are minor <br />five effects which have been addressed <br />goals and policies. <br />